We have one 2001 model Stealth R for sale, it is complete and has been stored in our factory, unused, it has 17.5 sq m spinnaker, trolley and can be delivered to Spring fever regatta for $7650, contact John on [email protected] <br><br>

John-

Could you please elucidate the differences between this Stealth "R" and the Stealth F 16HP please?

Sounds like a very good deal for someone!

Thanks!



Kirt

Kirt, the differences are as follows, visually the boats are very similar with the same hulls, (the f16 is 3cm shorter)



The mainsail is 1.5 sq m smaller, the jib is 1.5 sq m bigger.



The spinnaker is the same (17.5 sq m)



The hulls have a white gelcoat finish, not the metallic silver paint of the new boat.



The boat has dagger rudders but they are not T - foil (T-foils could be added for $280)



The R is 7ft 6 not 8 ft 2 wide.



The beams are aluminium without dolphin striker.



The hulls are not canted (could be done for$150, which would add 3ins to beam.



The daggerboards are the same



The boom is alloy not carbon



The mast is the same (tapered carbon)



The spinnaker pole, tillers, tiller extension are the same, (carbon).



the weight is about 248 lbs (f16 min is 220)





regards





john

Are you not cutting your fleets in half by having so many differences between the same boat. How can a Stealth R compete against a Stealth F at the Stealth Nationals without a Yardstick?

The boat has been developed over the last 4 years, the Stealth R is no longer made, its performance differs from the new boat by 1%, and as such it is grandfathered into the brand new f16 class, it will be slightly slower than the new boat, but it was deemed that the grandfathered boats performances are close enough to provide good racing.



The boats do each have a yardstick (handicap), the Stealth R is 102 and the F16hp is 101.



As a fleet we have decided to support F16 so the Stealth Rs can either sail in handicap races or scratch against other f16s.

As a new class which the F16 is it needs to start somewhere and that somewhere are the Taipan 4.9, Stealth R and Bim 16. The Stealth has gone F16 already, Taipan 4.9 class is voting on some modifications and I when I look at all of bimares boat I see they have been all redesigned except the Bim 16 as of yet. We just to see what they do to the Bim 16 design but you don't have to be a great visionary to guess a few possible outcomes.



Are all these grandfathered boats obsolete in a years time? I think not. These boats still rate within 1 % or so from the F16's and this difference can only be shown by a very capable crew. Most fleets finish in a time span of 20 % of the race time. So my cold judgement is that a crew can onky complain when they regulary finish in the top 3 and was sailing with new sails. The rest need to work on their sailing skills first. I very much doubt wether the pas top3 finishing places would change significantly due to this offset in generalized CALCULATED Performance. I also expect the grandfather boats to be faster in some conditions.



Anyways, this Stealth R must be regarded as it is. A good fast boat capable of having a good brawl with the F16's for a price which is to good to pass on. I mean USD 7500,- for a fully fitted spinakker fitted modern ligthweight design. Compare this to a new H16 price ? Would this be attractive enough to take that 1 % or so offset in performance ?



I can assure you that the offset to the H16 is much mush greater. So as a open class boat you wouldn't even notice the small F16 offset.



If you want the max under the F16 rule than the other stealth F16 is for you.



I'll be sailing a T4.9 myself in the F161 class. Granted, I will sail with a higher mast but my mainsail is of T4.9 class size and so on. So I'm not creasing you up here, these arguments were as valid to myself as they are to you.



Wouter

Wouter,



I am sure the impression you leave is not intentional, but the topics that the T4.9 AGM at the next Nationals will discuss have NOTHING to do with F16HP.



"These boats still rate within 1 % or so from the F16's and this difference can only be shown by a very capable crew. "

If this is so, then why does a proven design need any changes?



Your T4.9: If the mast is higher, it is not a Taipan 4.9 anymore. If the luff length of your sail is T 4.9 class legal, what do you need a longer mast for?



You as the creator of the class do not aid in building confidence in the class if you, on the one hand, claim that the current boats (bim 16, Stealth, T4.9) are perfect for the class and that special modifications only make a 1% difference, on the other hand, you invest a lot of work, thought and money to alter one of the praised designs? Why don't you just sail "as is", THAT would help the class.



Good sailing,

Gebhard.

Gebhard,



Let me rephrase than.



My boat will be an F16HP one-off heavily based on the Taipan 4.9 design. The only feature that don't make it a class legal T4.9 is that I'm going to sail with a slightly higher mast to let the platform take the genaker (bag) better.



I do also rearrange the block setup and some other small stuff like cleats but all this is class legal.



The rest is all per plans and standard. Now I am sure that everybody want to reads to much into this but any designer will know that does not improve performance by any significant amount, it merely saves my back a little when ducking under the boom to tack. Maybe I save some 2 seconds per tack and jibe, even so then it only accounts for some 0,33 % in time. You at your weight 120 kg crewweight have alot bigger advantage on me than this, so what is fair, Gebhard ?



About class legal :

You're right my F16 HP based on a taipan 4.9 isn't class legal. Now, I'm sorry to say this but their aren't any T4.9 class races in the EU so I don't think I miss out on alot. And when there are than it will only take a shorter mast section to make me legal again. A good saw will do the trick.



>>I am sure the impression you leave is not intentional, but the topics that the T4.9 AGM at the next Nationals will discuss have NOTHING to do with F16HP.





They have indeed nothing to do with the F16 HP, they are merely class issues like a choice on a genaker size for open class racing etc. So you're right about this. So let me rephrase this :



The grandfathered designs are becoming more and more similar to the F16 HP class setp depending on the outcome of some class meetings and builder design choices. Stealth is already a pure F16, Bim has indicated that they will deliver the BIM 16 1-up to F16 specs when requested and at the next Taipan 4.9 AGM a discussion on the genaker size will be held about which of two sized to choose for open class racing. The sizes involved are 21 and 17,5 sq. mtr. if I remember it correctly. Is this true ?. I guess that entering a T4.9 in a open class event is sort the same as entering a T4.9 in a F16 HP race.



I'm sure that this describtion replaces my earlier statement fully and more accurately.





"These boats still rate within 1 % or so from the F16's and this difference can only be shown by a very capable crew. "

If this is so, then why does a proven design need any changes?



Personal changes because I like sailing the boat with this block / cleat setup better and the mast because I want some more mast rake flexibility when genakering without pulling block on block. The higher boom helps a bit in tacking and jibing. Thats it.



>>Your T4.9: If the mast is higher, it is not a Taipan 4.9 anymore. If the luff length of your sail is T 4.9 class legal, what do you need a longer mast for?



I refer to my earlier comment. Let me ask a counter question. Why do you think that this is unfair.



>>You as the creator of the class do not aid in building confidence in the class if you, on the one hand, claim that the current boats (bim 16, Stealth, T4.9) are perfect for the class and that special modifications only make a 1% difference, on the other hand, you invest a lot of work, thought and money to alter one of the praised designs? Why don't you just sail "as is", THAT would help the class.





Gebhart, really !! I'll sail in the F16 with a T4.9 with barely noticable mods apart form the genaker setup ofcourse. My jib will actually be 0,5 sq. mtr. smaller than the standard T4.9 jib. Is this confidence in the grandfathered design performance or what ?



And than "Argument" which is suggestive at best and I told you before what I invest so also you know better.



" you invest a lot of work, thought and money to alter one of the praised designs? "



Alot of work yes, is this a crime. Does this somehow proof I have a hidden agenda ? Does it make my boat faster ?



Thought ? same argument; why may I not think about the setup and change it into what I like in terms of handling. Some crews let the crew handle the mainssheet (centre sheeting) some like the skipper to handle it (rear beam sheeting). If AHPC offers these as options than why may I not rearrange some stuff ? I think we are getting into double standards here.



It sounds like you consider alterations like this as sacrelidge. Some more A-class thinking won't harm.



Money, well I can assure you that I'm definately not investmenting more money in altering this design than I would transfer when I buy the design. And I think it is wise for us both to leave it at this.



Now what I don;t understand is why people are starting a inquisition on this new class. Are the concepts presented so dangerous to the establishment. Is what is said here such a big thread to the classes involved ? Is a calcualted offset of 1 % (in grandfather to pure F16) when crews are carbon copies really something to worry when in the same one-design classes the differences in crew weight 110 kg to 145 kg account for a couple of times more difference than that same 1 %.



Now I do really respect you gebhard and what you've done for Taipan EU but I wish you would use more substantial arguments than these suggest arguments like :"If this is so, then why does a proven design need any changes?"



You are harming both classes with this and for what, for a percieved difference that won't be noticable in real life rcing where fleet come at far bigger time differences than what we are talking about here. Dont you think that this is a bit of a shame ?



Let me summerize



We both know the design doesn't "NEED" these changes, but my way of sailing catamarans 'PREFERS" them.





Good sailing Gebhard



Wouter

Wouter,



one more.





> The only feature that don't make it a class legal T4.9 is that I'm going to sail with a slightly > higher mast to let the platform take the genaker (bag) better.

So that means the self tacking jib which goes down to the spinnaker boom is gone?



I do also rearrange the block setup and some other small stuff like cleats but all this is class legal.



>About class legal :

You're right my F16 HP based on a taipan 4.9 isn't class legal. Now, I'm sorry to say this but their aren't any T4.9 class races in the EU so I don't think I miss out on alot.



I did not say anything about class legality in EU. But, as you know, the license agreement for building a 4.9 clearly states that you can only call the boat "Taipan" and have the class sign in the sail if it complies to the class rules. To emphasize this is very important IMO, no matter how large the changes are, because otherwise sooner or later the itegrity of the class will be gone with many home builders calling their boat "Taipan" only because it is based on the plans. I am not saying your boat is like that or your intention is so, I only wanted to clarify that it is no more a Taipan 4.9 if you change the setup beyond the class rules.





>>...and at the next Taipan 4.9 AGM a discussion on the genaker size will be held about which of two sized to choose for open class racing.



The discussion is in my understanding about whether a spinnaker should be made class legal at all, whether it is good or bad for the class. There is NO indication that the designers/builders or the Australian class association support the F16HP in any way and the fact that a decision on the spinnaker effects the F16HP is purely coincidental. After the way Jim Boyers comments where handled I would be surprised about support from AHPC. But I might be totally wrong, maybe there is more going behind the curtain than I know?



"These boats still rate within 1 % or so from the F16's and this difference can only be shown by a very capable crew. "

If this is so, then why does a proven design need any changes?



Personal changes because I like sailing the boat with this block / cleat setup better and the mast because I want some more mast rake flexibility when genakering without pulling block on block. The higher boom helps a bit in tacking and jibing. Thats it.



I was not refering to you boat, I was talking about the Stealth and your answer.



>>Your T4.9: If the mast is higher, it is not a Taipan 4.9 anymore. If the luff length of your sail is T 4.9 class legal, what do you need a longer mast for?



I refer to my earlier comment. Let me ask a counter question. Why do you think that this is

unfair.



Did I say I consider it as unfair? I was just trying to understand the reason, now I know it. Thank you.



>>You as the creator of the class do not aid in building confidence in the class if you, on the one hand, claim that the current boats (bim 16, Stealth, T4.9) are perfect for the class and that special modifications only make a 1% difference, on the other hand, you invest a lot of work, thought and money to alter one of the praised designs? Why don't you just sail "as is", THAT would help the class.



> It sounds like you consider alterations like this as sacrelidge.



No, not at all. As long as the mods are within the class rules. Like with A Classes.



> Now what I don;t understand is why people are starting a inquisition on this new class. Are the concepts presented so dangerous to the establishment. Is what is said here such a big thread to the classes involved ?



Wouter, there is no big conspiracy here against your baby. People like me are just sceptical, just like you are regarding a lot of things.



> Now I do really respect you gebhard and what you've done for Taipan EU but I wish you would use more substantial arguments than these suggest arguments like :"If this is so, then why does a proven design need any changes?"



That was no "argument", just a question. I am not arguing, I just do not understand why a design must be changed in so many ways (see John's list) if the improvement in performance is only 1%. That was all. And, btw, (as usual) you have not even tried to answer my question.



> You are harming both classes with this and for what, for a percieved difference that won't be noticable in real life rcing where fleet come at far bigger time differences than what we are talking about here. Dont you think that this is a bit of a shame ?



I do not have to be ashamed of anything. I do not think there is a sound basis for F16HP, it is the answer to a question nobody asked. And I am saying this even if it should "hurt both classes".



> We both know the design doesn't "NEED" these changes, but my way of sailing catamarans 'PREFERS" them.



My suggestion: Trust in the designers and their experience. Write down the intended mods, SAIL your boat as intended by the designers for 2 or 3 years, THEN revise the list. You will be surprised. I too had thought about and tried some modifications only to find out that the original solution is the best compromise. For how many hours have you sailed a Taipan now? And you think you can do better than Boyer/Goodall?







Have a nice weekend,

Gebhard.

I don't really want to jump into the middle of an argument and I hope this isn't an argument but rather just a discussion.

Regarding the Stealth and the changes from the "R" to the F 16HP, it is my understanding the "R" was pretty much a prototype itself, being an upgrade from the standard Stealth ala the Inter 17 and Inter 17 "R" . The standard Stealth is still offered and has a following in UK apparently but there was interest in a "faster" version and the "R" was an attempt to meet that. Then the F 16HP class evolved and the rules were set so John, IMO wisely, merely modified the prototype "R" to the maximum F 16HP specs. IMO this was probably more a marketing decision than because he felt it was "necessary" to make the boat appreciably faster. If I were looking at purchasing a new boat, right now (or in the future), strictly or primarily for racing in the F 16HP class I would probably be very intrigued by a boat built specifically to the rule. Now if there were already a bunch of F 16HP "grandfathered" boats/fleet in the area I might gravitate to one of them so I could do both.

As for slight changes in the 4.9, I also pointed out to Wouter that under the current Taipan (AHPC) rules a boat can not be called a "Taipan 4.9" unless it is class legal and measured (Are you the EU measurer Gebhard?).

HOWEVER, I think the Taipan class may want to make some provision for calling F 16HP "legal" Taipan-based boats something w/ "Taipan" in the name- ala Stealth calls theirs the Stealth F 16HP, BIM the BIM F16. These builders obviously believe this will only help their marketing efforts to have these boats associated with their "standard" one-design boats.

By the way Gebhard- Were you aware many of the Taipan cat rig boats in Aus have a totally different mast section from the sloops? I didn't know this until I had been sailing my boat quite some time. That is not an "option" that's widely known and not "marketed" here in the US. So there can be quite substantial differences between class legal Taipans right now, being differentiated on the basis of cat vs sloop rig, seems to me allowing another "version" would not be all bad, sort of like the Taipan F 18 is really just a "modified version" of the 5.7.

Just some thoughts guys-

Merry Christmas!



Kirt

Hi Kirt,



Here in Australia, there are quite a few Sloop 4.9's running with a "cat rig mast", that is a mast that is lighter by a couple of kilos. I think originally the different masts were marketed to both sloop and cat rig sailors.

Gebhard,



>>So that means the self tacking jib which goes down to the spinnaker boom is gone?



Not is not gone, however the dimesions of the jib are within the max dimension as given in the rules such as 5,1 luff length. The part of the rule that could make it NON compliant is that the jib tack may not be below the bridle split. I lead it past this point to be able to sheet the jib from the forebeam. However, for T4.9 races I could slight the jib up past the bridles and sheet it off the trampoline again. So If I where to have the complaint length of mast than it could easily restore it into full complaint mode. Now I'm going to test sail it and work out the optimal settings with the higher mast (about 8,75 mtr instead of 8,5 mtr.) Then I'll decide wether I keep it or not. If or when An active T4.9 fleet in EU gets developed I'll be sure that pick up a saw and cut of that 0,25 mtr. extra mastsection.



So this was my reason to only name the mast as true non complaince for making that complaint takes some effort. But I admit that this is a question of how to look at things. So if the mast is 8,5 mtr. than Yes in F16 HP mode my boat will not be a Taipan 4.9 due to this jib. And in T4.9 mode (same Jib higher attached) my boat will be complaint.



I hope this clears things up.





>>I did not say anything about class legality in EU. But, as you know, the license agreement for building a 4.9 clearly states that you can only call the boat "Taipan" and have the class sign in the sail if it complies to the class rules. To emphasize this is very important IMO, no matter how large the changes are, because otherwise sooner or later the itegrity of the class will be gone with many home builders calling their boat "Taipan" only because it is based on the plans. I am not saying your boat is like that or your intention is so, I only wanted to clarify that it is no more a Taipan 4.9 if you change the setup beyond the class rules.





I that case please advice me on what Taipan EU regards a good name for my boat. I know the carbon masted Taipan was called a Euro Taipan, maybe Taipan F16 or F16 Taipan would be acceptable. I would very much appreciated if you could help me out on this. I mean calling is Wouter F16 doesn't really place the credits where the credits are due (AHPC) either.



Be adviced that I will request a Texel rating for my boat under that name.





>>The discussion is in my understanding about whether a spinnaker should be made class legal at all, whether it is good or bad for the class. There is NO indication that the designers/builders or the Australian class association support the F16HP in any way and the fact that a decision on the spinnaker effects the F16HP is purely coincidental. After the way Jim Boyers comments where handled I would be surprised about support from AHPC. But I might be totally wrong, maybe there is more going behind the curtain than I know?





We'll we're not the secret service here and I think that I indicated in my rephrasing that the rules are could become more similar depending on the outcome of the vote. I didn't say that this was directly linked to the F16 HP class.



About how Jim Boyers comment where handled, I must say that I don't see any problems here. He request the suspension of the weight equalisation rule and he got that. We informed about further points of discussion and he replied that he was content with it.



I say this was a very respectable way of "handling his comments" as you say and I again regret the suggestion you feed by this insinuation.





>>I was not refering to you boat, I was talking about the Stealth and your answer.



Well, I think Kirt has answered that one best. No need to contribute. Thanks Kirt.





>>>Your T4.9: If the mast is higher, it is not a Taipan 4.9 anymore. If the luff length of your sail is T 4.9 class legal, what do you need a longer mast for?



>>I refer to my earlier comment. Let me ask a counter question. Why do you think that this is

unfair.



>Did I say I consider it as unfair? I was just trying to understand the reason, now I know it. Thank you.





Sorry I misunderstood than, your choice of words gave me the impression that you were trying to say something else. Obviously my mistake, sorry.





> Now what I don;t understand is why people are starting a inquisition on this new class. Are the concepts presented so dangerous to the establishment. Is what is said here such a big thread to the classes involved ?



Wouter, there is no big conspiracy here against your baby. People like me are just sceptical, just like you are regarding a lot of things.





You are not just sceptical. If you are you would hav chosen different sentences and not the implying ones as :"After the way Jim Boyers comments where handled " and "maybe there is more going behind the curtain than I know? "



You are working towards an endresult and this is not the same as just informing yourself of the mods I make on my ...?



So lets be on a level here.





>>That was no "argument", just a question. I am not arguing, I just do not understand why a design must be changed in so many ways (see John's list) if the improvement in performance is only 1%. That was all. And, btw, (as usual) you have not even tried to answer my question.





And you continue at it.



'In so many ways" = suggestive

Stealth R and Stealth F16 are very similar.



and why do we sway from my ... to the Stealth and back.



(look a suggestive argument from my side. two can play this game)



>>And, btw, (as usual) you have not even tried to answer my question.



But you're not really trying to say anything special with this, are you ? You're just asking, right ?





>>.... I do not think there is a sound basis for F16HP, it is the answer to a question nobody asked. ....



And here we have your (hidden) agenda ! I'm sure thatyou know exactly what everybody everywhere is asking. (Im still continueing in my example that two can play this game.)



What I do want to say about this comment is that I find it remarkable that this class has been able to make this progress (Stealth F16, low budget offers for Stealth and BIM, and what not more) in only 7 months for an "answer to a question nobody asked"



Now my question to you is why not participate in this when this is so clearly in favour of the Taipans ? Why even work against this class ? Why are you so defensive about the Taipan design? Why not work with us, I'm sure that the whole group including the builders would really like you to participate and thus strengthen both our initiatives. Our class and you Taipan EU. Divided we fail and united we can win a part of the cat scene and present a really good alternative to the sailing public.



Now, I have had several people inquire about the F16 HP class and Taipans in particular and I remain perfectly objective but this conflict we seems to loose ourself in each time makes it considerable harder. Especially when it is public like this.



Now, I offer my hand and hope you will accept it and work together to our mutual benefit.



Wouter

Kirt,



sorry for the late answer.



Thank you for your point of view re. "one design" vs. F16Hp.



I am not a measurer for Taipans, although I might have some good knowledge by now. There is no class in EU, not enought boats for one design races, so currently no need for measurers. Also, if people use some common sense and stick to the existing rules, we will not need measurers for a long time.



Re. masts: To my knowledge, there is/was no difference in the profile as such, just the wall thickness (which saved approx. 1 kg). These masts are no longer available (anyone correct me if I'm wrong).



Gebhard.

Gebhard-

I have never seen the "smaller" section but I was told by James Sage (Aus Taipan 4.9 cat rig National Champ) that their were 2 sections available with one being the Auswing and the larger (standard sloop and front beam) being the Superwing sections. He indicated to me the Auswing DID have a smaller section- it was shorter fore-aft than the Superwing and it was lighter. He further told me I could tell which I had by comparing my mast to my forebeam- If it was the same dimensions it was the Superwing (which he actually felt was better personally) if shorter it was the standard Auswing-

Perhaps an Aussie could fill us in on the details or else Goodall's? I did not know the smaller section was no longer available anywhere- It was not offered here in the US that I know of on the 4.9's.



Have a Merry Christmas!



Kirt

Kirt,

The Aussiewing was originally designed for the A class back in the 80s. It has a smaller sectional shape but in fact has a much thicker wall , heavier, more flexable and not as robust as the Superwing. (I think a much softer alloy.)



I think the sectional shape would be the same as your A class mast. (I have one but wouldn't put it on my Taipan.)



The Aussie wing was put on the Stingray when they went to a taller rig with a wingmast. They went from 28ft to nearly 32ft. In this configuration they pumped in heavy air. That is the spreaders would move forwards and then behind the centreline of the mast. Scarey stuff !



I was told, at the time, Goodall designed the Superwing to replace the Aussiewing on the Stingray.

The Superwing worked great on the Stingray and is still used by them.

I understand when they were designing the Taipan in the early days they did try the Aussiewing but settled on the Superwing which is now the only legal mast section.



I also have been told that there used to be a more flexable version of the Superwing available for the cat rigged sailors,

very slightly thinner wall, but they are no longer available.



This is my understanding.



Phill

Wouter

Thanks Phill!

The "lighter" Superwing must be the one Antony (from Aus) was referring to? I'll have to look at my "A" mast (AHPC carbon) more closely- I thought it was the same sectional shape as my Taipan-

How's the newest boat going? Have you all been "playing" with spinnakers/reachers much this season?



Merry Christmas and a Happy Sailing New Year!



Kirt

Kirt,

Yes, I'm pretty sure the "lighter" Superwing is what Antony is talking about. I've never had one but I was told the difference was somehow achieved during the Anodising process. Don't know if this is true. Don't even know if it is achieveable this way.

I expect that now adjustable spreaders are being used the need for a softer section for cat rigged boats is diminished.

I think it is much better having a single uniform section that you know will be strong enough to take a heavy sloop rig crew and have enough adjustment to tune for a light cat rigged crew.



Unfortunately I've been too busy to do much on the reacher/spinnaker front.

The new boat is coming along slowly but I'm very happy with how it is going.



Problem is, I enjoy the work so much I tend to take my time with it and just enjoy myself. As soon as I have to do it to a schedule it becomes a job and the fun goes out the window..



If I took time out from sailing I would progress more quickly but "one sail you miss out on is one you never get".



Hope you enjoy your Christmas and New Year festivities.



Phill

Hi Phill, There is an etching process during anodizing that can be pretty acurately controlled by experienced operators so that the mast wall thickness could be manipulated chemically to pretty close tolerances; sort of a chemical machining procedure to (relatively) easily and inexpensively remove material where you wanted to before the anodizing coating is applied. They used to do this on big boat masts, especially near the top, before carbon became a better option.



Also, I liked reading about the pleasure you get from casually working on your boat - exactly the way I feel about such activity. That's a good thing for a fleet owner! :-)



Take care, Mike

Mike,

I've often wondered about the ability to thin the wall with the anodizing process.

Thanks for the information.



I may be a fleet owner one day. We are having so much fun with my son's Paper Tiger I'm thinking of building two more.

We could all race the Tigers, my two sons aren't big enough to race Taipans cat rigged yet.



You have two waves?

Family rivalry or friendly cruising?



Phill

T4.9 Zen 130

Paper Tiger D' OH! 2994

T4.9 ??? 247 (in the fullness of time)